MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137968131 · doi:10.1139/b04-147

Impact of glandular hair exudates on infection of chickpea by <i>Ascochyta rabiei</i>

2005· article· en· W2137968131 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cheryl Armstrong-Cho, B. D. Gossen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAscochytaBlightBiologyConidiumGerminationInoculationCultivarHorticultureAgronomyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ascochyta blight, a fungal disease caused by Ascochyta rabiei (Pass.) Labr. (teleomorph Didymella rabiei (Kovačevski) v. Arx), is a major constraint to chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) production. An unusual feature of chickpea plants is the secretion of a highly acidic fluid from glandular trichomes. This exudate was shown to promote germination of conidia of A. rabiei at low concentrations (0.012 and 0.06 mg·mL –1 ) but to inhibit germination at higher concentrations (0.3 and 1.5 mg·mL –1 ). The removal of exudates from plants prior to inoculation with A. rabiei increased infection and, subsequently, disease development in susceptible cultivars. On partially resistant cultivars, however, the effect of removing exudates on infection was not apparent until early podding, when genetic resistance declines. Simulated rain applied prior to inoculation increased disease severity as the volume of simulated rain increased from 1 to 4 mm. Since rainfall is required for dispersal of conidia, host exudates are likely to have little impact on secondary disease spread under field conditions. Exudates may, however, contribute to variability in disease studies conducted on older chickpea plants, especially in controlled environments.Key words: ascochyta blight, epidemiology, screening, Didymella rabiei, Cicer arietinum.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207